Hi,I think it would be great if you implement private issues in redMine.This is an issue that is viewable only if you have the permission to view private issues and for example the end clientwill not see the issues in the company...If it is possible now in redMine, please tell me how to do it. I don't see a way now...

History

First of all, Redmine is a great product. I liked the workflow feature and I see enough potential to be customized for purposes other than project management. Only if I could make all issues visible only to certain roles, and for others only their issues are visible.

In my opinion, it would be great if this feature can be enabled as part of permissions - something like "View All Tickets" could be a permission which is set to checked by default. If we uncheck, members with that role can see only their ticket.That also means, they will not be able to see others issues, activities, calendar, issue summary etc.

I am not sure how difficult the implementation is. I am new to Ruby and trying to figure out how permissions work in Redmine (some hash table?)

The other "issue" is the name "issue". I would have preferred some neutral terms like "ticket".Anyway, I edited en.yml and changed the word issue to ticket.

Heh, I will soon be leaving the company I am currently employed at and unfortunately the main drive to install redMine will leave with me. Therefore I can't really give much more information.Off the top of my head this sounds like it is more complex than a simple user based internal/external separation.

Hi,another thought: when creating an issue and assign it to somebody, there has to be a possibility to make it private for that user, so only he can see it (like the boss assigns tasks for project managers, but the developers are not allowed to see this tasks).I thinking of a tree, in which the lower level users don't see the issues of higher level users.

Because I think the internal/external feature is a whole new solution for redMine, because external users are commonly clients in Trouble Ticketing sistem. Jeffrey made some filtering on assignment of issues to internal/external users etc...This separation of the users in redMine will make it not only project management and issue tracking, but and trouble ticketing system which on its side is great :)

There is something I don't understand indeed...What is the meaning of the "No private issues"?If a user has "View private issues" or just "Private issues" in the role "Clients" for example, maybe he should not be allowed to see and create them... Or I missed something?

I almost convinced my bosses to use redMine in a presentation yeasterday :)

I'm very proud of it :-) Thanks

I understand your need. It's different from internal/external issues.Instead of adding one more flag on issues, maybe I could implement a common solution:

just a "Private" flag on issues

a new permission "View private issues" at role level

a "No private issue" flag on user accounts

If a user has a role with "View private issues" permission, he will see private issues on the corresponding project.

If a user has the "No private issue" flag checked on his account (not modifiable by himself of course), he won't see any private issue and won't be able to create private issues. It could be set for clients for example.

Hello,I almost convinced my bosses to use redMine in a presentation yeasterday :)The issue that was on the table with it was exactly these private issues.

The patch proposed by Jeffrey Jones is about internal/external users.

I'm asking now for the ability when reporting issue to make it private for the user who reported it. There has to be a permission for this feature - View others private issues.redMine is a great innovative tool, and we want to use it as a project management solution, by posting to it not only developers tasks but the jobs of project managers. It suits our organization for now but, the lower levels of the hierarchy should not see the work of the higher level.

I agree with Geordee - really great software you created there, Jean-Philippe. As you know we recently started using it for TYPO3 (http://forge.typo3.org).

Private issues are also one of the most important features we will need for TYPO3. We have a security team which takes care of any security issues. Currently we track them with Mantis. All security issues are submitted as private issues which only the security team can see.

I propose that a "private" flag can be set for a whole tracker. All issues for that tracker are not visible to the public (but probably to the team members). The question is, how we can give the security team access to all these trackers without having to add each team member to each project. The easiest - but not very clean -solution would be to let all security team members be administrators. But maybe there are alternatives?

a '_private_' flag on issues (so that the tracker won't be the only way to set an issue as private)

a '_view private issues_' permission at role level

an additional setting at account level to set the ability of the user to see private issues, with the following options:

never: the user can never see any private issue

always: the user can see any private issue

according to his role: the user only see private issues on projects for which he has a role that is allowed to view private issues

Robert, you could use this option to enable security team users to view any private issues without having to give them a role on all projects.

A flag could also be added at tracker level so that an issue attached to a private tracker is automatically private.A user should be able to view a private issue if he is its author or assignee, whatever his permissions are.

One more question: who should be allowed to create or set issues as private ?For example, anyone could be allowed to create private issues but only specific role(s) could be allowed to set an existing issue as private.

Hi,Jean-Philippe, all your proposals are pretty enough I think.Only that:Robert, you could use this option to enable security team users to view any private issues without having to give them a role on all projects.

I can't get the meaning. If a user is not assigned to a project with a particular role, he don't see any issues in this project (not public project), right?Then, how he will see the private issues? Am I missing something?

great to hear that you want to work on that feature. In my opinion all of your proposals make sense and they would certainly satisfy our demands.

One more question: who should be allowed to create or set issues as private ?For example, anyone could be allowed to create private issues but only specific role(s) could be allowed to set an existing issue as private.

In our case anybody should be able to create private issues and it would be okay if anyone would be allowed to set an existing issue as private. However, I could understand if someone needs the feature that only certain people are allowed to mark existing issues as private. Maybe that shouldn't be an extra feature but rather be determined from the rights someone has to edit a whole issue.

I'd just like to add my voice to this one too. I will quickly out line our use-case, which i think is covered by the above description that JPL described above.

I have a team which work on a project. There are many non-team members which create new issues (features, bugs, etc). I would like to have the non-team members able to create items, and then the team "update" the items (with notes) which are not viewable by the non-team members.

It would be helpful to have an option to make "updates" private by default.

Private bugs are also an issue for us, however our use case is I believe slightly different - I'll put it here in case it's a helpful. As I understand it, what you are proposing above is the ability to restrict certain issues to effectively "superusers" - in case they are sensitive.

Our use case is if we use redmine to track bugs in a product, we would want company Foo to raise bugs and also company Bar to raise bugs in the same project - however whilst Foo could see all bugs Foo had raised, we would not want them to see bugs that Bar had raised (and vice versa). This seems very similar to the proposed solution, but rather than private/not-private it requires the ability to set them private/not-private at a company wide level (to be honest, even if it was limited to "person from Foo who raised the bug and all developers" that'd probably be sufficient).

Adrian, your request concern another matter: user-groups. There's a bunch of feature request about that, like #1018. Once this feature will be implemented, another improvement will be to enable users from a certain group to view restricted/private/security trackers.

I sort of like the idea of keywords. Yes there is some complexity there, but its generality just seems naturally appealing to me. More so than coding a hodge-podge of private/public, personal/non-personal, internal/external, financial/non-financial, and so on.

I can also think other levels of access. For instance, in our shop the developers would never want to prevent the user from seeing the internal of what we do, they generally don't want to. It would be nice to be able to hide developer tickets from non-technical staff by default, but allow them to choose to see them if the want.

I dont think all the different posters on this page are talking about compatible use cases (or at least the proposal being proposed by Jean-Philippe Lang will solve some users problems but not others). One of the blissful things about Redmine is that so far it achieves so much out of the box with a 'lightness of being' - it is not weighed down by hundreds of modes, options and checkboxes. What I am worried will happen here is that this proposal will be implemented, but will only silence 50% of the requests so then further layers of control get put on top until you end up with a Lotus Notes-esque multi layered security model nobody can understand...

Here are some real life scenarios as far as I can tell from the discussion:

Apple computer want the general development team to work on outstanding issues but keep new features tightly controlled and visible to key developers only.

The proposed solution (private flag and associated permissions) is too blunt to solve all these needs - it marks some issues as private and then grants some roles the ability to see private issues. This will solve the goal of B above (since internal roles will be senior to external roles) but will be a problem for A and C because they are peer to peer type access control problems (although clearly there are workarounds).

Perhaps instead we could implement user groups (as requested elsewhere... ) as collections of users. Allow issues to have project visibility or group visibility (perhaps have a group field and if null visibility is default). Neatly partitions access within the members of a project and separately from role. Works great where multiple clients exist in the same project ect. Completely backwards compatible.

I think the group visibility is great.But just keep in mind that when a new bug/feature is raised, "someone" need to setup the visibility for each group; this could be a long uninteresting work, and shall be reserved to some people (Project Leader for example) ... So depending on the cases you've presented above, default visibility should be automatically setup. For example, - when Boeing open an issue, everyone can see within ACME (or some groups only), excepts the one registered as Airbus.- when an issue is open internally, everyone can see it within ACME (or some groups only), and customers can not see them.

To summarize, a configuration panel shall exist per group to determine the default visibility to set up to the other groups in case one member of a group raises an issue.

Good points. To properly suggest an answer I need to solicit feedback on another question first. If Groups get implemented should they be exclsuive or not (ie can I belong to multiple groups?).

If groups are exclusive they are fairly easy to implement - when adding members to a project there would need to be an additional column group. A project member could be assigned to 0 or 1 groups. Alternatively groups could be a global attribute (same across all projects) in which case users would be assigned to a group from the user admin screen.

Either way you could set a project level flag: Default Issue Visibility: <Group | Project>

Then all new issues created by anyone would default to the group that person was a member of if:

That user was in a group (group not null)

That project had a default visibility of Group

On the other hand if Groups were implemented in a more flexible way where any user could be a member of any number of groups then it gets harder because the above logic would not work. I am having difficulty thinking of a fooproof mechanism in that scenario.

If Groups get implemented should they be exclsuive or not (ie can I belong to multiple groups?).

From my POV, exclusive groups are just useless: they could be replaced by a system of credential copy. Of course, non-exclusive groups are far harder to implement, since we have to define rules of precedence between groups rights, but that's the only way to get powerfull right management.

a '_private_' flag on issues (so that the tracker won't be the only way to set an issue as private)

a '_view private issues_' permission at role level

an additional setting at account level to set the ability of the user to see private issues, with the following options:

never: the user can never see any private issue

always: the user can see any private issue

according to his role: the user only see private issues on projects for which he has a role that is allowed to view private issues

Robert, you could use this option to enable security team users to view any private issues without having to give them a role on all projects.

A flag could also be added at tracker level so that an issue attached to a private tracker is automatically private.A user should be able to view a private issue if he is its author or assignee, whatever his permissions are.

One more question: who should be allowed to create or set issues as private ?For example, anyone could be allowed to create private issues but only specific role(s) could be allowed to set an existing issue as private.

What do you think ?

Hi!

I have compared openSource systems like SourceForge (Savanah, GForge, RedMine) and I think that Redmine is the best among them. As to me I am necessary to have the private issues, I have made a patch for 0.8.0-release(30/12/2008). I have included two kinds of permissions on my decision:

Redmine is a very great app ! Thanks to everyone you have help to have this project so good.We want to move from Mantis to Redmine, but there is this missing feature that make us some problems.

I would like to know if Redmine will permit to make visible a ticket only for some specified users (or role) ?

We have 3 kind of roles : client, freelance, admins(us)

When a client ask us a feature, we create a ticket only visible between us and the freelance.After the negociation price with the freelance, we create a ticket only visible between us and the client.

Do you think this will be possible in Redmine ?

Thanks

The redmine-private_issues.v.0.1.patch from Paul Zubarev in this thread provides a 'Add private issues' and 'View private issues' right which you could assign to roles. But that would not be sufficient in your situation it seems, since you have 2 kinds of private.

The redmine-private_issues.v.0.1.patch from Paul Zubarev in this thread provides a 'Add private issues' and 'View private issues' right which you could assign to roles. But that would not be sufficient in your situation it seems, since you have 2 kinds of private.

Thanks for your help Wessel Louwris.Do you know if there is another way where I could do this negociation in private but into Redmine ?I have read there is a new rights managements for the Wiki, or may be by creating a Forum with the good rights perms ?

I tried the patch and took an error then user have no permissions to view private issues (http://localhost:3000/projects/show/test2):SQLite3::SQLException: no such column: false: SELECT count(DISTINCT "issues".id) AS count_all, tracker_id AS tracker_id FROM "issues" LEFT OUTER JOIN "projects" ON "projects".id = "issues".project_id LEFT OUTER JOIN "issue_statuses" ON "issue_statuses".id = "issues".status_id LEFT OUTER JOIN "trackers" ON "trackers".id = "issues".tracker_id WHERE (((projects.id = 2 OR projects.parent_id = 2) AND issues.private = false) AND issue_statuses.is_closed='f') AND (projects.status=1 AND (projects.is_public = 't' or projects.id IN (1,2))) GROUP BY tracker_idProblem has gone when I comment single line

My company is also in need of a way to hide issues based on a specific criteria. As Ewan points out, many of the suggested solutions are to solve a specific use case, leaving many other desired use cases unsolved. A more generalized approach is necessary.

I propose that a new feature be implemented that allows users to define their own permissions for viewing tickets. This feature would be analogous to the filter on the /issues page (in fact, the interface would be nearly identical). The admin would be able to define a new permission filter based on the same set of criteria available in the issue filters. For example, the admin may select the criteria:

Assigned to is <<me>>
Tracker is Bug
Target version is [1.0]

The admin can save this "permission filter" and assign it to a specific role. Like normal issue filters, this would work on custom fields. So you could add a "private" custom field that is binary, if all you need is private vs. non-private permissions. I would imagine that custom fields in the permission filter would have to be limited to custom fields that are marked "For all projects" and "Used as filter".

The user will be affected by the current limitations that are in the issues filter. For example, what if I want to filter for all tickets that are priority "Normal" AND priority "High". (Note: I think this can easily be addressed by making improvements to the filtering.)

The approach is very flexible, and can be used to solve all use cases described so far.

Much more complex permission systems can be created using this solution.

It could be made possible to assign a permission filter to a user, not just a role.

I am not familiar with the Redmine source (or Ruby for that matter), but it seems as though much of the code for this proposed feature is already written. The developer would be adapting existing code that has already been heavily tested.

In my eyes, it is important to finally have this feature in redmine. I don´t understand why the patch of Paul is not already integrated into the core as a first step. Maybe later there is time for the more generic solution of Jose.

If user adds private issue, he will be able to browse his issue even if he does not have view_private_issue permission.

This patch for 0.8-stable svn branch.

With this patch (in 0.8-stable) the atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles.Any tips on where I should start to debug this problem?

Also in the project overview it also shows the number of current private issues to the user.Is this intended?

If user adds private issue, he will be able to browse his issue even if he does not have view_private_issue permission.

This patch for 0.8-stable svn branch.

With this patch (in 0.8-stable) the atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles.Any tips on where I should start to debug this problem?

Also in the project overview it also shows the number of current private issues to the user.Is this intended?

I get the same behaviour in the export to CSV and PDF features of the Issues Module.It exports everything, including the private issues.

...You still get emails if you belong to the project and have your preferences set to send emails for all projects you're involved in, regardless of your permissions.

This doesn't seem right...

I can confirm that it does really occurs. I have this patch applied to Redmine 0.8.2 and people that don't have permission to see private tickets are receiving emails from private tickets changes and comments if they mark to "send emails for all projects you're involved in".

I would love to help you, but I'm a noob in rails.. All I can do is report that! :)

Private tickets is a really great and useful feature and I think the way this patch implements it is a good way, That could be better in the future. With this email issue and the Atom issue resolved, I think its mature enough to be integrated with Redmine trunk and come in the first 0.9 stable release.

Thanks for Paul for the patch and all others for the feedback and ideas!

I am using a test installation of 0.8.5. I am a bit confused about the various comments here.Is there a better version of the private issues being worked on for 0.9, or is it going to bethe patch being integrated into the trunk.

Also, which file should I use for applying the patch as there are several on this page. Sorryfor any novice comments

I am using a test installation of 0.8.5. I am a bit confused about the various comments here.Is there a better version of the private issues being worked on for 0.9, or is it going to bethe patch being integrated into the trunk.

This patch will be integrated into the trunk as soon as it's mature enough. As I can see, we still have some problems in this feature. Below is a list of current problems (sorry if i forget something):

"People that don't have permission to see private tickets are receiving emails from private tickets changes and comments if they mark to "send emails for all projects you're involved in"". (Shaun Gilroy and Me)

"The atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles." (Thiago Queiróz)

"I get the same behaviour in the export to CSV and PDF features of the Issues Module." (Thiago Queiróz)

"The private issue's Assigned member should be able to view the private issues." (li wei)

"Watchers should also have permission to view tasks." (li wei)

Also, which file should I use for applying the patch as there are several on this page. Sorryfor any novice comments.

The file is private_issues.v.0.2.patch. I've applied here in Redmine 0.8.2 and everything is ok. (Except for the known issues above)

I hope someone could solve this minor issues and integrate this patch into trunk ASAP.Thanks!

I think issue #2653 is better way to separate clients from each other than "Private issues". Private issues will involve some chaos to project management.

I think they're not the same think. I my company, for example, it's not a internal/external user problem. We use private tickets to avoid all (even internal users) to see tickets that have private information.

If someone will use this to 'separate clients from each other', putting all internal tickets as private, I agree with Stanislav. It will be a big chaos.

I think issue #2653 is better way to separate clients from each other than "Private issues". Private issues will involve some chaos to project management.

I think they're not the same think. I my company, for example, it's not a internal/external user problem. We use private tickets to avoid all (even internal users) to see tickets that have private information.

If someone will use this to 'separate clients from each other', putting all internal tickets as private, I agree with Stanislav. It will be a big chaos.

Another concept (or: a short summary of the above ideas) which hopefully covers all the use cases mentioned above + one case I recently heard of (from a friend to whom I recently recommended redmine). A non-software company has external users who should be able to view issues which were explicitly made available to them but no other issues (no project-wide rights, only per-issue viewing rights). Security is a concern.

I'm not familiar with redmine code.

There is some similarity to multiple user assignment, but this idea is related more to data security/access control than the workflow.

1. Project-wide settings: Private Issues, Watchers and Editors

enable private issues (if disabled, no point in specifying Private Editors an issue in the project)

are new issues private by default?

when security is a big concern: to prevent mistakenly revealing too much information to outsiders: all issues of this project are locked to private (only private issues allowed in the project and its subprojects?)

2. Add permissions under "Issue tracking"

View Private Issues

Become a Watcher - Only project participants with this permission will appear in the UI control (list?) which allows to add Watchers to an issue. Watchers of a given private issue can see it listed or see its details although they have no View Private Issues right. Implementing explicit permission to Become a Watcher is not a must, but would add security (prevent mistakenly authorizing a third party to view a private issue).

Implement the permissions of an Editor in a similar fashion: Edit Issues is already present, to be added: Become an Editor of an Issue, Add Editors, Show Editors List, Delete Editors

3. Specifying access rights when creating/editing issues

Issues can be made private or visible to all participants (public) by the creator (or editor with relevant permissions)

If the issue is made private, creator / editor of the issue selects users (or groups) as Watchers and Editors (UI controls only becoming visible when you check the private checkbox, unless it's on by default)

4. Hidden updates, especially for hiding attachments

When updating an issue, specify whether Watchers of this issue can see the update (i.e. you want to upload a file not for Watchers' eyes. Could be useful if you want outside Watchers to track progress of your work, but not access too much data (i.e. documents you create).

5. Allow groups to be specified as Watchers and Editors

If all 5 of the above are implemented, then this should cover all the cases mentioned in this discussion (including Guillaume Lecanu's case with freelancers and clients). It would also remedy some but not all of the concerns of people who requested assign to multiple users. Still, Jose's idea is very appealing as well.

Sometimes you will want to

specify access rights project-wise, like using a filter by the admin in Jose's idea or using few pre-determined access rights in the above idea.

specify access rights on a per-issue basis (especially important when security is a concern and very little info should be made available to users automatically).

I think the per-issue aspect is something easier dealt with in the above case (although I'm not sure - not a redmine dev myself). It is of course also possible in Jose's permissions-like-filters idea. It could probably be implemented using the same 'engine' as the rest of permissions-like-filters, but the filters concerning individual issues should also have UI options in create/edit issue screens. The individual, per-issue filters should probably be hidden by default from the admin permissions-like-filters interface (there could be v. many of them)

A project can have Private Issues enabled -> then the users can select if a given issue is private

A project can have Private Issues forced -> then all issues are private

Private Issues can be viewed/edited by users with View Private Issues or Edit Private Issues permissions. Other users can view/edit if they were added as a Watcher / Editor of the particular issue.

Groups of users can be specified as Watchers or Editors of private issues.

Hidden Updates to a private issue (and their attachments) would be hidden from the Watchers

Some projects will mostly use user or group permissions to control access, projects with tight security will force private issues and use explicit issue-level permissions to grant access (Watchers and Editors lists for issues)

HelloI have a problem with privacy in Redmine.I have the version 0.9 Stable. When trying to update private_issues.v.0.2.patch (23.4 KB) Paul Zubarev, 2009-02-01 01:01 gives me errors. Not find the routes.Someone can help me? I need users can not see the information between them.How do I install the PATCH?I await your response.

Unfortunately that patch is against a pretty old version of redmine, as far as I can tell, and won't work against the current version. Unless your knowledge of ruby is pretty good, you'll need to wait until this feature is in a release, which isn't scheduled until version 1.0, due in about 4 months (http://www.redmine.org/projects/redmine/roadmap)

"People that don't have permission to see private tickets are receiving emails from private tickets changes and comments if they mark to "send emails for all projects you're involved in". (Shaun Gilroy and Me)

"The atom feed from the issues tab still displays the private issues the users shouldn't be alllowed to see according to the permissions set on the roles." (Thiago Queiróz)

"I get the same behaviour in the export to CSV and PDF features of the Issues Module." (Thiago Queiróz)

"The private issue's Assigned member should be able to view the private issues." (li wei)

"Watchers should also have permission to view tasks." (li wei)

Are these problems still present? It seems that Oleg fixed 3, 4 and 5. Can someone that's using the patch confirm? Let's keep these problems status to help some developer to merge this patch into trunk ASAP.

I seem there is some confusion with the "private" meaning here.Let there are two people: A (issuer) and B (supporter). "A" create new issue with "private" option and assing that task for "B". "A" think that issue is shown only for him and for "B" but really it's shown for A,B,C,D,F,etc, who have permissions to view "private" issues. There is some confuse here.It would be nice to rename "private" issues to "hidden" issues or something like that.

Private issues are visible on the project overview even without the "View private issues" privilege. My test project is public. I added three issues, one of them is marked as private. Only I have the "View/Add private issues" privilege. Our guest user, who has the "View Issues" privilege and no other privileges, can see two (the non-private) issues. On the project overview page he can also see there is one more issue, a private one.

Private issues are visible on the project overview even without the "View private issues" privilege. My test project is public. I added three issues, one of them is marked as private. Only I have the "View/Add private issues" privilege. Our guest user, who has the "View Issues" privilege and no other privileges, can see two (the non-private) issues. On the project overview page he can also see there is one more issue, a private one.

Thanks. I did interpret "so conceived" as "by design". ;) But why was this "conceived" that way? Why am I allowed to see that there are private issues if I'm not allowed to view private issues? The same does not apply for public/private project does it? People who are not added to a private project will never know of it's existence. Shouldn't the same rule be applied to issues?

Oleg started to adapt patch v0.2 made by Paul Zubarev for redmine 0.8.x version.This patch has this changes and that nobody was complained we decided to keep it as is. Because user only see number of private tickets, but can't see a list of this tickets or any other details

I made some changes to the patch you submitted. Basically for my own usage since I don't like the idea that our customers, who have a basic "view role", can see (some) issues are hidden for them. The way I see this is: only users with the correct privilege (view_private_issues) should be able to see totals including private issues. Therefore I changed "/redmine/app/controllers/projects_controller.rb" and "/redmine/app/views/projects/show.rhtml". I included my changes as a diff to your pacth so that you can decide for yourself if you like these changes. I did some basic testing and it seems to work the way I described it; however; since I'm new to redmine and ruby, I might have missed something.

To summarize; I added the following functionality:

- only users with the "view_private_issues" privilege will see issue totals including private issues in the project overview.- users without this privilege will see totals minus private issues.

It looks as reasonable changes. I was thinking about this issue, but it's fine for me as is.I don't think we should count private issues which you can see (created by or assigned to you). And just check "view_private_issues" privilege as Wytze suggested

We want to publicize our Redmine much like the Redmine running on this website. However, we do not wish people to be able to do those things mentioned above when they create an issue, or it potentially requires too many cases in which the project managers have to do A LOT of oversight.

Any insight into this would help a lot, if it can already be done, that would be great.

Applied patch to 0.9.3 and did a DB:Migrate - no errors, however when attempting to view issue lists I get:

SELECT count(DISTINCT "issues".id) AS count_all FROM "issues" LEFT OUTER JOIN "issue_statuses" ON "issue_statuses".id = "issues".status_id LEFT OUTER JOIN "projects" ON "projects".id = "issues".project_id WHERE ((issues.status_id IS NOT NULL) AND (issues.assigned_to_id IN ('14')) AND (projects.status=1 AND projects.id IN (SELECT em.project_id FROM enabled_modules em WHERE em.name='issue_tracking') OR issues.is_private=0 OR issues.author_id=11 OR issues.assigned_to_id=11 OR issues.id IN (SELECT watchers.watchable_id FROM watchers WHERE watchers.watchable_type='Issue' AND user_id=11)) AND projects.id IN (1) AND projects.status=1 AND projects.id IN (SELECT em.project_id FROM enabled_modules em WHERE em.name='issue_tracking'));
ERROR: operator does not exist: boolean = integer
LINE 1: ...ERE em.name='issue_tracking') OR issues.is_private=0 OR issu...
^
HINT: No operator matches the given name and argument type(s). You might need to add explicit type casts.

I found a bug in this patch (v0.7). Suppose the following: a person (XYZ), who has privileges to "View Issues" but not to "View private issues", is member of a project which has some Administrator's users. These Administrators are solving issues in this project, but all of them in private. The expected is that XYZ shouldn't be able to access these issues, right?Ok, then... If our person clicks in "Issues" tab in the project, nothing is displayed: alright! But if this person clicks in "Overview" tab, and then in the name of any Administrator, it will be redirected to this user's page. In this page, on the "Activity" part, the person will be able to see the names, status and comments of the issues, even though clicking on them will redirect to an Forbidden Access page...

The problem in #2653 (for my needs, of course) is that I need many clients, with "View private issues" access, and they MUST see each others issues (so they don't duplicate them). This (#337) is still better to what I need, but maybe I'll have to take some Ruby classes and try to submit a patch myself :)

Can you help me to install this patch?I have redmine v 0.9.3. I download private_issues.v.0.7-0.9.3.patch I try to do:patch -p0 < private_issues.v.0.7-0.9.3.patchbut I have got lots of errors (logs in attachment).I'm not a programer an I dont know what to do with them, but I would love to have this patch.

Hi Oleg-I read through the thread on #2653 and from my understanding of the functionality on that thread this was more what I was looking for- the note at the top of #2653 indicates that these are different approaches- perhaps I misunderstand?

If this functionality is being covered completely in #2653, should the feature be updated to indicate this?

Also, thank you Oleg for writing this patch- this is a critical piece of functionality for a possible migration to redmine!

I added this patch to 1.0 and when you add or update an issue the is_private column does not get updated. If I edit the database by hand, the issue is hidden. What file handles the addition to the databse?

Looking at the logs with a debug level, I can see the Parameters are set correctly "is_private"=>"1", but in the "Issue Create" entry the value of "is_private" is 0. at what point are the parameters pass to the SQL statement and what could I have missed when using the last patch?

I can't tell which patch is valid. Many of them are are missing a description and appear as partial patches.

Several patches are using a "redmine/" prefix. Please create a patch at the root of Redmine.

I don't see any tests in these patches. With a feature this large and one that affects data visibility, there must be tests to cover all of the new code and possible edge cases.

Once these concerns are addressed, then it would be possible to review this patch and see about adding it to Redmine.

Another thing to keep in mind: the patch proposed here is different that what Jean-Philippe Lang wants to do with private issues:

# From logs at http://www.redmine.org/wiki/redmine/TeamLeadMeeting0
jplang: the patch in 337 is not what I want to do with private issues
jplang: we need to share issues between groups of users
edavis10: Khalsa: yea, bugmash'ing includes tracker cleanup
jplang: not just can see / can not see private issues
rchady: the changes to properly implement private issues will be fairly far reaching and have a lot of impact
rchady: Trying to squeeze it in to a release is just a bad idea

Is there a chance to put a higher priority on this feature? I know many people who claims that lack of this one functionality keeps them from migration to Redmine. I understand that list of features waiting for solid implementation is long, but this one is critical - just ask anybody.

Eric, I understand where you're coming from, I really do, but there must be some way to work this issue out and get it done faster, while still maintaining a solid implementation. As the person before me said, it should be higher priority, and this feature alone would get more people to use this software thus making it more popular, which is what every software always needs. (:

Oh for Christ's sake, I'm really getting tired of people having the impression we are sitting on our hands and not giving sh*t about this issue. Breaking news: we do care, and we know it's important to a lot of people. This just in: There's over 2300 other open issues, some of them structural and deep-reaching which would make implementing this thing here "now" one more thing to take care of (and potentially break backwards compatibility of) when those changes are made.

Ве Fio wrote:

but there must be some way to work this issue out and get it done faster

To put it bluntly: part of the hold-up here is JPL, if you can get him to either admit he has no time/interest in taking care of a developer community and hand over control to someone(s) else, or to fork over the work he has already done and which we are somewhat waiting for here so that others can pick it up, or to just drop the ball on this one and tell us that he won't get said work out in any foreseeable period of time so that Eric/we can implement something else, then yes, it could speed things up.

Oh, and I forgot the classics: fork the project, have someone maintain the patches in your installation, and so on…

</rant> (oh, and before flames redmine for having unfriendly devs or whatever: those are my opinions and mine only, though I'm quite certain they reflect to some degree those of most other people working on redmine too)

I'm really getting tired of people having the impression we are sitting on our hands and not giving sh*t about this issue. Breaking news: we do care, and we know it's important to a lot of people. This just in: There's over 2300 other open issues, some of them structural and deep-reaching which would make implementing this thing here "now" one more thing to take care of (and potentially break backwards compatibility of) when those changes are made.

I'm sorry if I made it out to seem like you guys are doing nothing, that was not the intention. :) Just to let you know, I really do understand.

oh, and before flames redmine for having unfriendly devs or whatever: those are my opinions and mine only, though I'm quite certain they reflect to some degree those of most other people working on redmine too)

Not at all, I understand that dealing with loads of people requesting every which-way of things can get frustrating at times.

Please Felix, don't take it this way.Redmine is the best thing I've seen in years and you guys are doing a great job evolving it in a solid way. And I'm not the only one who thinks you're doing a great job.

Sorry if we insist too much in new features. I think it is merely an expression of happy users interested in improving Redmine even more but whithout the necessary technical skills to contribute in the development. Of course, this also means that your audience goes far beyond Ruby programmers; and this by itself is also an important achievement... that produces headaches from time to time ;-)

Patch #337 is too complex for inclusion in redmine, and Eric did not include never, no matter how many tests I have not written to him. But why not include the patch #2653, which is clear and simple - I do not understand.

You will have to talk to Jean-Philippe about that, he was the one who originally assigned it to a release before there was any code. You will need to be very careful about making promises based on planned releases, anyone with a user account can assign the Target Version. I'd recommend what I do with all of my clients:

"No promises until the feature is closed and the code has been committed"¶

I'm sorry if this affected you but Redmine is 100% volunteer driven. If someone has an emergency or needs a break, they have every right to take that time for themselves.

And on the other hand; if things don't happen how you want, you can step up and help Redmine out. We are more than happy to have some help.

If you want this feature added, I gave 3 things that need to be done in my last comment and posted the larger context about where this feature fits into Redmine.

You will have to talk to Jean-Philippe about that, he was the one who originally assigned it to a release before there was any code. You will need to be very careful about making promises based on planned releases, anyone with a user account can assign the Target Version. I'd recommend what I do with all of my clients:

"No promises until the feature is closed and the code has been committed"¶

I'm sorry if this affected you but Redmine is 100% volunteer driven. If someone has an emergency or needs a break, they have every right to take that time for themselves.

And on the other hand; if things don't happen how you want, you can step up and help Redmine out. We are more than happy to have some help.

If you want this feature added, I gave 3 things that need to be done in my last comment and posted the larger context about where this feature fits into Redmine.

Eric, is there a chance to include #2653 instead of this? As Oleg said above, it's clear and simple. I have an instance of Redmine (v. 1.0.1) running with that patch, and it's working very well. It doesn't cover all #337 does, but cover almost everybody's needs.Is it possible?

I think it would be a pity to implement user restrictions on issues this way : THERE IS MUCH BETTER TO DO !With solution below we could say RedMine can be used also by support teams, customers,... of a company.I am an old user of o tool called "CODENDI" (Support and customer collaborativ tool) that deals perfectly with visibility and permissions on issues, it is simple and very well done. There is a permissions tab in administration of a tracker :

Permissions on fields of tracker : for each field of the tracker you can choose its visibility in a small menu : "Can be set by all users" "Can be seen by all users" "Can be set by registered users" "Can be seen by registered users" "Can be set by same group as user that submits" "Can be seen by same group as user that submits" Persmissions on tracker : a list of the different user groups is presented and there is a menu in front of each proposing options : "Can submit in this tracker" "Can access this tracker"

If you think of these options you will see it covers many of improvement demands I have seen.Implementing something like that would make RedMine a much more extended product (even if I like it very much yet ;) )

OPEN SOURCE DEVELOPMENT TEAMS DON'T NEED IT, BUT IT WILL MUCH SATISFY MOST OTHER DEVELOPMENT TEAMS IN THE WORLD :=)

I forked Redmine and applied the private issue patch on the 1.0-stable branch and updated what needed (mainly unit test). I add the patch here so it is easy to apply on existing Redmine installation (but you could also clone my repository). Everything is working fine on our production server so far.

However there is still one failing unit test ("test_default_assign"). As I am new to RAILS, I would really appreciate if somebody could give me hints on how to solve it (advices or documentation). I'm having hard time figuring out how to test "a user without permission to add private issue will always create public issue". I am not sure if the error is in the test, or in the issue creation process (in particular the validation process). So if anyone could help me about that, that would be very nice.

Ok I have upgraded to: Redmine 1.1.0.devel.4761 (MySQL)Is this patch known to work with this version of Redmine?

As stated in patch filename it is to be applied on Redmine 1.0.5 revision 4569. I did not test it on anything else. If you provide more information about what fails, I may be able to help. Otherwise I may suggest you to grab the whole thing from the fork: https://github.com/PowerKiKi/redmine/tree/1.0-stable